From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23157 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2008 13:04:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 23149 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2008 13:04:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:03:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 8891 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2008 13:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Jul 2008 13:03:42 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Don't try to report =?utf-8?q?=09resumed_thread_it_the_thread_list_is?= empty. Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Vladimir Prus References: <200807052158.30295.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200807091604.11646.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200807091352.28573.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200807091352.28573.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807091403.36260.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 A Wednesday 09 July 2008 13:52:28, Pedro Alves wrote: > A Wednesday 09 July 2008 13:04:11, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > I'm not sure which way we want to make it consistent. Outputiing > > "thread-id" with a "I don't exist" value of thread id seems a little bit > > distasteful. I guess I can modify regexp to make thread-id optional. > > I meant either output -thread-id="0" everywhere, or don't output -thread=id > at all, nowhere. To be clear, I don't care that much about this inconsistency, what I really want to have all targets register at least a thread, so modifying the regexp is also fine with me, FWIW. Although I thought that changing the code in this case would be a less invasive change, than relaxing the testsuite. -- Pedro Alves